The differences between strict and loose constructionists of the Constitution.
Summary
There are many different aspects of the constitution. There are people's rights,a system of checks and balances, allowance of power and so much more. Some people take this aspects and interpret them word for word very strictly. Others, interpret it loosely, with room for change and the ability to change things as circumstances change
There are two major ways of interpeting the Constitution. There is a strict interpretation and there is a loose interpretation. The strict way of enforcing the constitution means that what is written in the constitution is final. The words cannot mean anything but their literal meaning as written down. This also means the judges cannot make any infrences about what is or is not allowed based on the Constitution. Thomas Jefferson tended to interpret the constitution quite strictly. His thoughts were that if it is not in the constitution it is not allowed. In modern day this is called Originalism becasue the people interpreting the constitution this way interpret it the same was as the "original" writters. On the opposite side of the spectrum there is a loose interpretation of the Constitution. A loose interpretation means that even if it is not written, it can still be done. This also allows for decisions to be made based off of the situation and not only the exact writtings of the the Constitution. Alexander Hamilton tended to interpret athe Constitution loosely. He thought that the constitution needs to have multiple ways it can be thought of so that way it accounts for multiple different situations. In modern day this is called Modernism. This is because people interpreting it this way today think of how the original words would be changed if it were written today, how it would need to be changed in order to accomodate modern day changes.
The differences between strict and loose constructionists of the Constitution.
Summary
There are many different aspects of the constitution. There are people's rights,a system of checks and balances, allowance of power and so much more. Some people take this aspects and interpret them word for word very strictly. Others, interpret it loosely, with room for change and the ability to change things as circumstances change
There are two major ways of interpeting the Constitution. There is a strict interpretation and there is a loose interpretation. The strict way of enforcing the constitution means that what is written in the constitution is final. The words cannot mean anything but their literal meaning as written down. This also means the judges cannot make any infrences about what is or is not allowed based on the Constitution. Thomas Jefferson tended to interpret the constitution quite strictly. His thoughts were that if it is not in the constitution it is not allowed. In modern day this is called Originalism becasue the people interpreting the constitution this way interpret it the same was as the "original" writters. On the opposite side of the spectrum there is a loose interpretation of the Constitution. A loose interpretation means that even if it is not written, it can still be done. This also allows for decisions to be made based off of the situation and not only the exact writtings of the the Constitution. Alexander Hamilton tended to interpret athe Constitution loosely. He thought that the constitution needs to have multiple ways it can be thought of so that way it accounts for multiple different situations. In modern day this is called Modernism. This is because people interpreting it this way today think of how the original words would be changed if it were written today, how it would need to be changed in order to accomodate modern day changes.
Notes
http://www.sparknotes.com/biography/hamilton/terms.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strict_constructionism
http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_intr.html
References
The Americans - Your textbook
Your Daily Notebook
External Links
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strict_constructionism
We could not find any pages on "loose constructionism"